Drivers of large vehicles are the latest to feel the wrath of the anti-texting movement

Driving is a privilege that most
Americans take for granted. We drive to work, we drive to see family,
and we run errands on the weekend to Home Depot or fend off soccer
moms in their minivans at Target. However, technology continues to
invade not only our lives, but also our vehicles, which is making the
normally mundane act of driving more challenging.

From GPS units to cell phones to SYNC
in-car infotainment systems, U.S. drivers have found new ways to
distract themselves while driving thanks to technology (not to
mention other favorites such as applying makeup, eating, reading the
newspaper, etc.). Texting while driving is the latest craze to infect
drivers and states around the country are swiftly implementing laws
to make such activities illegal. Texting is already banned in 19
states, and 23 states are currently prepping their own laws to tackle
the problem.

"Legislators are looking to see if
it (texting) is enough of a safety issue that they need to
intervene," said Anne Teigen told
the USA Today. Teigen is a transportation specialist for
the National Conference of State Legislatures. "They often get
involved because there's a high-profile accident that had to do with
texting. Also, because everybody has a cellphone now."

While states are currently going it
alone in drafting "no texting while driving" laws, there
are a few nationwide texting bans that drivers should heed. President
Obama issued
an executive order at the close of 2009 banning all federal
workers -- rather, those on the job -- from texting while driving.
The ban affects roughly four million federal workers.

Now a new, federal ban is coming down
from the U.S. government. The latest nationwide texting ban applies
to drivers of big rigs and buses. "We want the drivers of
big rigs and buses and those who share the roads with them to be
safe," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "This is
an important safety step and we will be taking more to eliminate the
threat of distracted driving."

Drivers that choose not to abide by the
new law face a fine of $2,750.

The bans from both the states and the
U.S. government come on the heels of numerous studies which point out
the dangerous consequences of texting and driving. A study by the
University of Utah showed that drivers that text behind the wheels
are six times more likely to be involved in a collision. The National
Security Council notes that roughly 200,000 accidents are caused each
drivers who text behind the wheel.

However, it's wishful thinking to
believe that nationwide texting bans are going to stop people from
partaking in America's favorite electronic pastime. Reuters
has previously reported that teens aren't
persuaded to stop their texting addictions just because there are
laws on the books to prohibit the act.

"What I would say is that texting
and cell phone devices have become such a component of life for teens
and for young people that it's hard for them to differentiate between
doing something normal and doing something wrong," remarked
Steven Bloch, a senior research associate for the Automobile Club.

Considering that texting while driving
isn't a habit that only affect teenagers, it's more than likely that
drivers in a more "advanced state of age" are reluctant to
stop the practice as well.

While the current nationwide texting
bans affect a relatively small portion of the entire U.S. driver
pool, Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat, NY) is looking to change that.
Senator Schumer has introduced legislation that would call for a
federal ban on texting while driving. States that don't comply with
the legislation would be see a 25 percent cut in the federal highway
funds they receive.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Actually, that logic has already been played out in court. Seen how many times a cop has shot and killed someone driving towards them, under the premise they believed the person intended to run them over? Same principle.

So yes, if someone was texting and about to run me over and IF shooting them would prevent the accident and IF I had no other means to prevent the accident, I most certainly could shoot them, and almost certainly get off in court as well.

Texting while driving is incredibly dangerous. Its a threat to anyone else on the road. You can't get around that simple fact...and even if it wasn't, the state (though NOT the federal) government would still have a right to control how you operate a vehicle on a public road.

quote: Texting while driving is incredibly dangerous. Its a threat to anyone else on the road. You can't get around that simple fact...and even if it wasn't, the state (though NOT the federal) government would still have a right to control how you operate a vehicle on a public road.

While I agree with the idea that the state has some right to control driving, I disagree that texting is anymore dangerous then any other distraction that can effect your driving that the person behind the wheel has control over.

quote: Actually, that logic has already been played out in court. Seen how many times a cop has shot and killed someone driving towards them, under the premise they believed the person intended to run them over? Same principle.

Actually you would still possibly charged with manslaughter and would have to use your own funds to defend yourself where as the police would be put on paid leave while once again YOU paid to defend him.

Also I didn't realize that when you said driving towards you that you meant right at you, my mistake.

I would then by your logic conclude that if the driver were NOT texting but just driving at you that you would not consider them a threat but would just let them run over you???

Once again your logic makes for this law is flawed...texting is no worse then any other form of negligent driving no matter how much you try to defend it these laws like DUI laws make no sense.

(Also I would like apologize for my earlier remark about you being a libertarian, you are right they are varied in their opinions, please accept my apology if I seemed rude.)

"I disagree that texting is anymore dangerous then any other distraction that can effect your driving "

Studies have shown that texting is many times more dangerous than driving while drunk. Furthermore, the level of danger is irrelevant. The mere fact that the state chooses not to single out other forms of negligence (beyond dui, that is) in no way, shape, or form implies they lose the right to enforce a very real public safety risk from texting.

quote: The mere fact that the state chooses not to single out other forms of negligence (beyond dui, that is) in no way, shape, or form implies they lose the right to enforce a very real public safety risk from texting.

This is the flaw in your entire argument, THEY ALL READY DO!!

The laws are on the books already. There is no need for these frivolous laws which will not lead to protecting the public but instead will only lead to more of an invasion of our privacy.

The hilarity of it is that these laws are already in place in several states and almost all of them the Law Enforcement is calling them unenforceable since there is no way to tell when someone is texting, calling some or using their Ipod.

Do you not understand that the only way they can enforce these laws is by either;

Now I know your thinking well if someone is texting while driving and causes an accident, then I'm fine with the State gaining that information to convict them. But what if they weren't texting while driving and the State still requests and is granted access to your private personal information.

I'm sorry no matter what you say, your argument holds no merit. It's like saying that when you committing a crime with dull knife it is much more heinous act then if you used a sharp one. Therefore we need the Anti-Dull Knife law which would penalize you additionally for committing a crime with a dull knife.

If you want to do anything just increase the punishment for negligent driving no matter what the cause!!

I say we enforce or address the laws on the books FIRST, before you go out of your way to try to make new ones that will only result in infringing upon the public's privacy.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer